A judge has rejected a challenge by a property-rights group to Plan Bay Area, adopted by regional agencies to guide land use and transportation through 2040 by concentrating new housing and jobs in areas served by public transit.

The Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved the plan in July for the nine-county area, which is projected to grow in population from 7 million to nearly 9 million in 26 years.

Authorized by a state law intended to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gases, the plan designates areas eligible for state funding to encourage compact development, reduce vehicle use and preserve open space.

It also includes the transportation commission's regional road and transit framework, updated every four years.

A group called Bay Area Citizens, represented by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, filed the suit in August. The group argued the plan was unneeded because California laws reducing the carbon content of fuels and requiring cars and trucks to get better gas mileage would lower greenhouse gas emissions.

He also contended compact development would restrict property rights and have little environmental impact.

But Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo said Wednesday that a 2007 state law required the agencies to develop a plan that would meet greenhouse gas-reduction targets on its own, without considering the impact of the fuel laws.

The Bay Area agencies found that failing to adopt a regional housing and transit plan, as Bay Area Citizens proposed, "would result in less residential and employment density, which would result in less transit ridership, greater vehicle delay generally, and greater congested vehicle miles per capita," Grillo said.

As a result, he said, the agencies found they would be unable to meet emissions-reduction goals set by the state Air Resources Board.

Bay Area Citizens will appeal, said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Jonathan Wood. He said the group doesn't agree that state law requires a regional plan encouraging compact development and mass transit, and argues that the Air Resources Board reinterpreted the law without public notice or comment.